Among other things (many of which we have to run past the lawyers first!) he/she states, quite categorically, that a substantial number of the commentors on Daily Mail stories, especially those with no avatar or ID, are system responses, Mail staffers or paid contractors. On some days, it's over 50%, even 75%.

The Project - suitably named Abyss - was set up in 2015 and has run since. Estimated costs are £22,000 a year for 2017/18, which is lost in their 'Media/Marketing' Budget. It is particularly used when comments are either minimal or critical of the story, to generate false support.

The pain broke me, brotherhood relieved me, and from my wounds sprang a river of freedom.(Paul Dorey)Inscription on the Mémorial de la Paix, Caen.
How soon we forget.

Is Far Right Watch kosher? I posted the article about the DM writing its own comments elsewhere and someone pointed out that FRW was kicked off twitter for calling Stock, from the 1980s Stock, Aitken, Waterman writing trio m'lud, a cunt.

Possibly well deserved but it calls into question whether the organisation can be trusted.

The veracity of this, or otherwise, needs to established pretty darn sharp.

This is because the mail have hitherto distanced themselves from the legality of these comments, based on claim that they are a conduit rather than the publishers. If that is shown to be not the case and that they are in fact the authors, they could be looking at potentially thousands of charges of incitement.

Is it too much of a stretch to consider that this information, if true, has been put in to the public domain in order to discredit the old regime?

The veracity of this, or otherwise, needs to established pretty darn sharp.

This is because the mail have hitherto distanced themselves from the legality of these comments, based on claim that they are a conduit rather than the publishers. If that is shown to be not the case and that they are in fact the authors, they could be looking at potentially thousands of charges of incitement.

Is it too much of a stretch to consider that this information, if true, has been put in to the public domain in order to discredit the old regime?

Squeaky-bum time on a few EU-funded Highland estates this morning.

I agree - handle with caution until verified.

It's a pity that the editor is such a supportive boss.
If he had behaved like as victorian mill owning bully we might expect a flood of disgruntled staff ready to spill the beans.

Alternatively, the fuzz gets a warrant and grabs the appropriate IT kit.
However I fear Incitement by nice white people isn't now and rarely has been far up their agenda.

The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead. Aristotle

Sorry, but it’s hardly news. I can actually hang my head in shame and say that I worked as a managing editor for part of the Daily Mail, after the publishing company I worked for was bought by DMGT in around 1995 until I moved on four years or so later. As a result we got to learn of the editorial policies at the parent company. That was common practice then, and still is, and the same applies to most of the publishing empire.

The pain broke me, brotherhood relieved me, and from my wounds sprang a river of freedom.(Paul Dorey)Inscription on the Mémorial de la Paix, Caen.
How soon we forget.

The veracity of this, or otherwise, needs to established pretty darn sharp.

This is because the mail have hitherto distanced themselves from the legality of these comments, based on claim that they are a conduit rather than the publishers. If that is shown to be not the case and that they are in fact the authors, they could be looking at potentially thousands of charges of incitement.

Is it too much of a stretch to consider that this information, if true, has been put in to the public domain in order to discredit the old regime?

Squeaky-bum time on a few EU-funded Highland estates this morning.

A friend of mine who runs a fairly controversial forum tells me that when the shit hits the fan you're better off being unmoderated as then you can plead ignorance.

User mini profile

Ignorance of what the law is is not a defence. Ignorance as to fact can be. For example, one cannot buy stolen goods and claim one didn't know it was illegal to do so (well, one can, but it's not a defence in law). However, one can claim that one bought something in good faith and without obvious signs it was stolen (e.g. very low price, insisting on cash purchase in a layby on the Wolds) that is a defence against a charge of receiving stolen goods.